In 1993/4, about 66,000 women were recalled for further investigation of possible abnormalities (assessment) in the NHS Breast Screening, Pro gramme. Receipt of an abnormal screening result has significant psycliolo gical effects. Provision of information can help in reducing distress and enhancing satisfaction. Data were used from 97 per cent of Breast Screening Units throughout the UK to evaluate the written information sent to recalled women before their assessment appointment. The quality of these materials relating to recall in breast screening was better than that reported in other medical settings. However, substantial further improve ments in specific areas can be made and are outlined in this paper.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Maguire GPPossible complications of screening for breast cancer. British Journal of Radiology1982: 56: 284.
2.
Dean C., Roberts M, French K, Robinson S. Psychiatric morbidity after screening for breast cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology1986: 4(3): 77-92.
3.
Forrest Apm.Breast Cancer Screening: Report to the Health Minister of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. London: HMSO, 1986.
4.
Ellman R., Angeli N., Christians A., Moss S, Chamberlain J, Maguire P. Psychiatric morbidity associated with screening for breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer1989: 60: 781-4.
5.
Marteau TMPsychological costs of screening. British Medical Journal1989: 299: 527.
6.
Bull AR, Campbell MJAssessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. British Journal of Radiology1991: 64: 510-15.
7.
Walker LG, Cordiner CM, Gilbert FJ, et al. How distressing is attendance for routine breast screening? Psycho-Oncology1994: 3: 299-304.
8.
Sutton S., Saidi G, Bickler G, Hunter J. Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health1995: 49: 413-8.
9.
Lerman C., Trock B., Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Annals of Internal Medicine1991: 114: 657-61.
10.
Cockburn J. , Staples M, Hurley SF, De Luise T. Psychological consequences of screening mammography. Journal of Medical Screening1994: 1: 7-12.
11.
Gilbert FJ, Cordiner CM, Affleck IR, et al. How anxiogenic is recall following breast screening and does a family history of breast cancer make a difference [abstract]? Psycho-Oncology1995: 4: 98.
12.
Smith A.Screening clips. Anxiety and mammography. Journal of Medical Screening1995: 2: 125.
13.
NHS Breast Screening Programme. NHS Breast Screening Programme Review 1995. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1995.
14.
Sutton S., ICRF. Experiences of screening: anxiety issues. In: Austoker J, Patnick J (Eds), Breast Screening Acceptability: Research and Practice. London: NHSBSP publication 28, 1993 .
15.
Wardle J., Pope R.The psychological costs of screening for cancer. Journal of Psychosomatic Research1992: 36: 609-24.
16.
Smith S., Botha JL, Goosey R, Daintith H. Audit of user satisfaction with the Leicestershire Breast Screening Service; women attending for assessment of abnormal mammograms. Journal of Public Health Medicine1991: 13: 166-71.
17.
Austoker J. , Ong G.Written information needs of women who are recalled for further investigation of breast screening: results of a multicentre study. Journal of Medical Screening1994: 1: 238-44.
18.
Flesch RRA new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology1948: 32(3): 221-3.
19.
Bradley B., Singleton M., Po ALReadability of patient information leaflets on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines . Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics1994: 19: 7-15.
20.
Ley P.Psychological studies of doctor-patient communication. In: Rachman S (Ed), Contributions to Medical Psychology , pp-42. London: Pergamon Press, 1977.
21.
Marteau TM, Kidd J., Cuddeford L., Walker P.Reducing anxiety in women referred for colposcopy using an information booklet . British Journal of Health Psychology (in press).
22.
Wilkinson C. , Jones JM, McBride J.Anxiety caused by abnormal result of cervical smear test: a controlled trial. British Medical Journal1990: 300: 440.
23.
Albsu.Making it happen. Improving Basic Skills within the Health Service, pp 1-20. London: the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit, 1994.
24.
Albert T., Chadwick S.How readable are practice leaflets? [see comments]. British Medical Journal1995: 305: 1266-8.
25.
Michielutte R., Bahnson J, Dignan MB, Schroeder EM. The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. Journal of Cancer Education1992: 7: 251-60.
26.
Ley P., Florio T.The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychology, Health and Medicine1996: 1(1): 7-28.
27.
Breen MJWriting for your audience. Health Promotion1992: 31: 2-6.
28.
Chall J.The beginning years. In: Zakaluk B, Samuels SJ, Readability: its Past, Present and Future, pp 2-13. NewarkDelaware: International Reading Association, 1988.
29.
Meade C., Smith C.Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counselling1991: 17: 153-8.
30.
Smith T.Information for patients. British Medical Journal1992: 305: 1242.
31.
Posner T., Vessey M.Prevention of Cervical Cancer: the Patient's View, pp 1-120. London : King's Fund Publishing Office, 1988.
32.
Johnson M.Anxiety in surgical patients. Psychological Medicine1980: 10: 145-52.
33.
Ludwick-Rosental R., Nuefeld Rwj.Stress management during noxious medical procedures: an evaluation review of outcome studies. Psychology Bulletin1988: 104: 326-42.
34.
Mathews A., Ridgway V.Psychological preparation for surgery. In: Steptoe A, Mathews A (Eds), Health Care and Human Behaviour. London: Academic Press, 1984.
35.
Mumford E., Schlesinger HJ, Glass GVThe effects of the psychological intervention on recovery from surgery and heart attack: analysis of the literature. American Journal of Public Health1982: 72: 141-51.
36.
Weinman J., Johnson M.Stressful medical procedures: an analysis of the effects of psychological interventions and the stressfulness of the procedures. In Maes S, Defares P, Sarason IG, Spielberger CD (Eds), Proceedings of the First International Expert Conference on Health Psychology, pp 205-17. London: Wiley, 1989.
37.
Eardley A., Elkind A., Thompson R.HEA guidelines for a letter to invite women for a smear test: theory and practice . Health Education Journal1990: 49: 51-6.
38.
Ley P.Practical methods for improving communication. In: Morris L, Mazis M, Barofsky L (Eds), Product Labeling and Health Risks. New YorkCold Spring Harbour : Banbury Reports, 1980.
